coates starts right now. >> kaitlan, thank you. and good evening everyone, i'm laura coates. and tonight, we are once again in uncharted territory in american history. it appears that a former u.s. president is facing his now third indictment, in a matter of months. as donald trump reveals that he is now a target, in the special counsel's investigation into efforts to overturn the election. so here is the plan for tonight. we are going to methodically analyze exactly what we do know, just focusing on the facts, and figure out where this might go. next. we've got an amazing team of reporters, of experts, including the former council from one of trump's impeachment. plus, i will talk with a former trump white house legal advisor, and get her reaction to all of this. we also have -- michael phenone, the retired officer who was attacked on january 6th. will tap into his insight, after a target letter has been sent. and, jake tapper will join me on how trump's 2024 rivals are reacting, including an

exclusive interview with florida's governor, ron desantis. but first, there is an avalanche of headlines, and it's coming in fast and furious. so, here is what we know, at least at this hour. trump receives the letter, on sunday. he's already been plotting a strategy, with allies who are on the hill. prosecutors have now interviewed officials in all seven battleground states. and michigan has now charged the fake electors who signed certificates falsely claiming that trump won. and in trump's second indictment, over classified documents, the judge in that case saying that the trial is not likely to happen this year. trump is responding to the first time on camera tonight. >> i got the letter on sunday night. think of it. i don't think they've ever sent a letter on sunday night. and they are in a rush because they want to interfere -- interference with the election.

its election interference. it's never been done like this in the history of our country. and it's a disgrace. what's happening to our country, whether it's the borders, or the elections, or all kinds of things like this, with the doj has become a weapon for the democrats -- an absolute weapon. and it seems that every time my polls -- you know, we are leading by a lot. we are leading in a lot by a place called iowa. a lot. and not only with the republicans, but we are leading against biden by a tremendous amount. they haven't seen anything like it. and they feel, i guess, they want to demean and diminish and frighten people. but they don't frighten us. because we are going to make america great again. >> let's start off with the fact that trump is a target, we know now, in his own words, in the january 6th investigation. joining me now to discuss is cnn legal analyst, norm eisen. you recall he was the house judiciary special counsel in trump's first impeachment trial. norm, let's start at the

beginning, a very good place to start. we heard a lot about target letters. what does it mean to be definitely generally a target? >> laura, it has a technical definition. but the practical meeting is donald trump's, very shortly, going to face charges as a defendant. if you look at the definion here, the elements are, this is a person who the prosecutor or the grand jury as substantial evidence -- a lot of evidence -- that they have committed a crime. and, the pot has come up to such a high boil, that they're -- a putative defendant in the case. >> what does that term mean to people? >> it means they are an extremely likely to be charged, that they are currently considered as charges being imminent. so, it's a default, hey, you are going to get charged now. very rarely, laura, i practice defense law, as you know, for 30 years. before i was impeachment counsel. the lawyer will come in, and

top the government out of it. but, knowing as we do here, the mountain of evidence against donald trump. the seriousness, he said it, first time in american history a former president gets a target letter. he is going to get charged, that's what target means. -- allegations, substantial evidence. >> norm, standby, we have more to talk about on the sphere important issue. i want to head down to florida, though, and get the reaction from the trump world tonight. because that's where paula reid is. paula, what are you hearing? >> well laura, i was in court for about two hours during this first hearing, before judge aileen cannon. and it's pretty clear from what i saw today, that this cases unlikely to go to trial in december, which is when prosecutor said they would be ready to take this case before a jury. the judge has seemed sympathetic to arguments from defense attorneys that that was just too soon. she called that timeline, quote, compressed, and said cases like this just take more time, especially because this involves classified

information. she did not seem interested in litigating anything about how trump's candidacy for the white house would impact timing here. instead, she is focused on getting answers from defense attorneys about how long it will take them to get through discovery, and at least get to the point where they might be able to discuss a possible trial date, either next year or even later. laura? >> we will have to see it. paula, thank you so much. i want to break down with this target letter is all about, and the window he has to respond. joining me now is brandon van grack, a national security lawyer. first of all, we have not seen the actual target later. he has alluded to it, he has referenced to it as well. this is a sample target letter of the kind you would receive if you were to be a defendant or punitive defendant in an action. let's take an invite size pieces, though, because first, not everyone gets them. but if they have, it might look like. this walk us through, kind of the first part. it's telling you about what your rights would, be or what you are supposed to do as a grand jury witness. >> that's right. there is one distinction, i think, between this sample

target letter and probably what the former president got. which is, what this is saying is explaining how the grand jury process is going to happen. but it's, the implicit here is that the individual who has received this letter has been compelled to testify in the grand jury. and i think more likely than not with the former president, when he got was an invitation. in fact, the simple letter comes from the department's of justices own website, that gives a simple letter. and so, sometimes they are compelled, and it says this is what you're going to do. and, what probably are the former president, got probably didn't include that specifically. >> but in language, it's just one section. of it and the notion of, we advise that the grand jury is conducting an investigation, likely a federal crime. and of course, you cannot destroy or alter evidence, if you are either compelled, to produce. and right? >> and i think, if we could bring that language back up, i think that's probably the most interesting part of the letter the former president got. >> let's bring that back. >> because if you show the start at the end, you could miss. it's actually not a footnote. it is an invitation for the

prosecutors to include the potential charges, that the former president may be sort of accused of violating. and so, i think this line, likely was in the letter, and i think there's been some reporting recently this afternoon. indicating what those. >> we're gonna walk through what those capacities will be, but the notion is they're gonna have some advanced notice. the third part, you think about these bite size pieces of course, is telling you a little bit about what might be the sort of law and order moment of what you can say, or what you will say. may be used against. you. the notion that you have the right to refuse to answer questions. that might surprise people. >> well, that's exactly, right which is the point of the target letter. if i take a step back. it's a fairness point, again in the department of justice's own internal guidelines, it, quote, encourages prosecutors to send this letter to individuals who are about to be indicted, and maybe indicted. and what it is saying is, again, this is i think a language like this that would appear with the former president. it's an invitation to testify, but you do have rights. you are not compelled to testify, and that's exactly what this letter shows. >> finally, on one last part

of. it would you don't have a right to, although we know the right to counsel, that attorney can't be in the room with, you in the grand jury. >> that's correct. >> and the grand jurors can ask you questions. but you can go, out and step outside the grand jury room, and confer. why is that significant? >> well, i think, it's the reason why most individuals who receive a target letter do not in fact testify before the grand jury. >> it's more than a safety and security blanket, it might have implications. standby please brandon, because there's also another huge development today. 16 people were across michigan have now been charged, and now face multiple felony counts, in the 2020 fake electors scheme. we've got cnn's jessica schneider in the city of lansing, with much more on this. jessica, what can you tell us? >> laura, these are 16 republicans, who allegedly tried to storm in the state capital behind me on december 14th, 2020, armed with fake certificates, falsely proclaiming that donald trump was the winner here in michigan. despite joe biden, actually winning by 154,000 votes. at the time, those 16 were

rebuffed by police. but, now they are facing eight counts, multiple felonies, what could amount to decades in prison. it includes election law forgery. these were prominent republicans, current and former officials, school board member, a mayor. and now, they are all facing these charges. and it might not be the last. there are other investigations in other states, like arizona and georgia. laura. >> there might be more to come. jessica, thank you so much. speaking of charges, more broadly. i want to know, what some of the possible ones that trump might actually face, if, and of course, if he is indicted. norm eison is back with us right now. norm, we've talked about this a great deal, in terms of, what are the potential charges that he might be facing, and others could actually face. i want to walk for them a little bit with you. we've broken down in different categories. one of them as the obstruction of an official proceeding. talking about, -- obviously, certification, right? >> this is the culmination of the events that started after the 2020 election, and ended on january 6th. there are different ways that

prosecutors, in that target letter that we've talked about, may choose to charge. this different statutes. but, the essence of the matter is, laura, that donald trump's alleged now apparently going to be charged, for a scheme to stop the certification of the electors of the rightful president, joe biden. in favor of preserving his own tenure in the white house. the official proceedings that as the january 6th meeting of congress, and there is a tremendous amount of evidence that donald trump took steps to interfere with that. >> we've heard from, of course, the congon this issue. some things have happened in broad light, an open air. but then you've got this notion of the conspiracy, right. the conspiracy, the meeting of the minds, to defraud united states government, and the officials of the people. what is this a reference to?

>> this was the heart of a model prosecution, memo that i wrote with an all-star, bipartisan cast of former prosecutors. >> but what does that, mean a model? memo meaning that, how does that? >> meaning that the department of justice, in order to charge donald trump, in order to generate the target letter that we now know about, there had to be a prosecution memo. what we call, in criminal law a process memo, explaining, here is the charges, here are the facts, here is the evidence, here is the law, here's who did what, okay. in the core of this analysis, i think, is 18 usc three 71, 371, a conspiracy to defraud the united states. you can charge it in various ways, laura, but the essence is simple. that's what jack smith has to do now, he's getting ready to go the trial, against donald trump. keep it simple, stupid. you had these phony electoral set terrific. it's those people were not the duly appointed electors of the

winning presidential candidate. and, he used those phony electors to pressure mike pence, and then to disrupt congress. simple scheme, that is defrauding the united states out of the person who really was the rightful president. >> and of course, when i think about a conspiracy, when we all do. we talk about a meeting of the minds. it'll be likely, or unlikely that he would be the only person who would likely be charged in something like. that but then you've got this next, part i want you to address that as well. the possibility of an incitement, assisting, or giving aid to an insurrection. this is a very serious allegation. >> it's one of the most serious allegations in american criminal law. it's also one of the rarest. so, prosecutors are probably thinking, and we cautioned in our model prosecution memo, prosecutors may not go there. but they might look for other legal vehicles. how do you deal with an insurrection? you can say for example, that there was a conspiracy to interfere with mike pence performing his constitutional duties.

or, to interfere with congress, deciding on the rightful. person but in the end of the day, it all comes down to that violence, of january six. and i think that prosecutors are signaling, with this target letter. they are going to hold donald trump accountable, or attempt to, a jury of his peers. >> we shall see, that conspiracy word keeps coming. up norm, please stay with me, we've got a lot more to talk about. because up next, one of trump's former legal adviser in the white house is going to join me live, to react. plus, republicans on the hill are calling the letter, in their words not mine, -- . baloney. and now, trump is strategizing with them. and michael -- joins me to react to this looming indictment. this is a cnn special live coverage. this is how tosin lost 33 pounds on noom weight. i'm tosin.

noom gave her a psychological approach to weight loss. noom has taught me how you think about food has such a... huge impact on your relationship with it. visit noom.com and start your trial today. ♪ ♪ we're reinventing our network... ...with smarter, more efficient routes... ...so you can deliver more value to your customers. fast. reliable. perfectly orchestrated. the united states postal service.

listen up, you dogs with allergic itch! today's talking lesson is just one word: apoquel. ap--o--quel. ♪ you can't teach your itchy dog to talk... ...so, talk to your vet about apoquel. apoquel is for the control of allergic itch in dogs. do not use apoquel in dogs with serious infections. apoquel may increase the chances of developing serious infections... ...and may cause existing parasitic skin infections or pre-existing cancers to worsen. new neoplasias have been observed. i'm glad we speak the same language. ask your vet for apoquel.

>> all right. well, welcome back to our special coverage. there's been a dramatic development in the federal investigation into january 6th. former president revealing, himself, that he is a target of the criminal probe. i want to bring in former trump white house associate counsel -- main mailmen, also the vice president of restoring -- she served in the white house from 2019 to 2021. may mailmen, i'm glad you are here. -- you have spoken about this issue. and we are talking about the potential charges. we do not know what will ultimately come or if there will be an indictment or when.

but you have said that there should not be charges in any event. tell me why. >> yeah. so, i expect that the charges will relate to the fake electors scheme and not storming the capital. but i don't think the charges should be brought. this has nothing to do with protecting trump. if people commit crimes, they should be open to be charged. but, i don't think that charges are appropriate here for a couple of reasons. the first is that it's not illegal to be crazy. so, jack smith is going to have to prove that trump knew that he lost the election. and i just think that that's debatable, and debatable is not enough for doj to bring the weight of the federal government down on someone. yes, the fake electors scheme was farfetched, but it's not illegal to believe in a farfetched legal scheme, and try to convince your vice president that it's correct. and obviously, unsuccessfully. >> but let me ask you on that point. may, i want to hear that next point, on a very important point you raised. the idea of crazy. are you suggesting that somehow, he did authentically believe --

obviously, jack smith has to prove some kind of intent to a jury, and has to have at least some reference to it and demonstrate that he is aware of the intent based crimes. do you think that there is evidence to suggest that, maybe trump truly believed, that he in fact did win the election, and that his pursuit was lawful? >> yeah i mean, it's going to be tough. you have to get into donald trump's mind, which is something that neither you nor i could possibly do. and i've spent, a lot of time with the former president. and i think it's actually no different than most americans. where, if you tell yourself something for a long enough, it's actually really ends up being true to you. if you think the ref stole the game, that actually ends up being true. if you think you didn't send that awkward text that, i night, it actually ends up being true. if you think you didn't hear something, and all his advisers after his campaign's said, he did really win the election. at the time, there was some basis for this. there were real lawsuits going

on, in pennsylvania. and eventually, that basis faded, some of the fraud allegations were brought through the court system. and so, it no longer be came true. but, if you've bought into something so fully, and you do believe it. and he says that he won, everywhere he goes, still, currently. even though it is not helpful at all, to his reelect campaign. >> well may, that is true. but then you have testimony from the likes of, alyssa farah griffin spoke about his conversation with mark meadows at one point. i believe cassidy hutchinson alluded to something similar, referencing, their statements before -- obviously, the january 6th congressional committee, which is a separate, of course, beast in this entire equation, to suggest that he did in fact believe, or a new, that he did not win. but to your point about that fading -- that timeline, that chronology of this is very interesting this so many people. because, of course, one of the big issues here is whether they can prove that he thought so.

but also, how he may have conspired, or convince others of what he was saying. i wonder, you are a part of the white house, and you were there i think through 2020. 2021. did you ever have a conversation with the former president, about his belief that he won, or did not win the election? >> so, i didn't. fortunately that was -- at philbin and pat cipollone, who, i think, are well known to the grand jury at this point. but, yeah, sure maybe you got testimony from alyssa farah and cassidy hutchinson. and i don't think that there's any reason necessarily to discount that. >> but the doj usually needs more. more it's not, oh, on this hand, on the other hand. and then trying to figure, it out, and i don't know. usually, and you worked at the department of justice, so you know this. the department of justice, in order to seem like a fair broker, they bring cases that are certain, and that you can win, that you've got that

evidence. and, my fear is that when you bring a case that really seems like you just have to get into the presidents head. and it could go either way, and you're just not sure. that you end up losing so many americans. and this was kind of my second point. this isn't going to prevent another january 6th, if anything, it's going to make it worse. because people feel as though the department of justice is, it is one-sided. that it's politicized, and when people lose that faith in their institutions, then i think it actually is very dangerous to our republic. it makes you need to basically take over the government, because if the wrong side gets the department of justice, they will use it against you. so it creates this very high stakes, very bad situation. >> it also creates this, as you're singing to him tonight, myself filling prophesy on that very notion. it's interesting to say of course, perception as you know can very well become king. but, how is trump, unlike the

average defendant. i know he's the former president. but in terms of trying to prove intent, the prosecutors all the time have to use contractual clues, and circumstantial evidence that they don't have direct evidence, to try to understand the mens rhea, the mindset of a particular defendant. what makes this so different? is it the fact that politics, obviously has been a big part of the conversation around this particular allegation? >> well, you know, i don't think he's different than the standard defendant, in the sense that of course, you can never actually be in anyone's mind. so i would, i guess just say, you need the exact same level of intent. and i just struggled to see that you have that here. it's somebody who's been remarkably consistent, at least in the public view, that he thinks that he has won the election, and has really structured his life around it. i mean i personally think, you

are at this age, you should retire. but he thinks, he feels in his soul, that this is something that is owed to him, because he feels as though he has won this before. i really don't think you would see. i mean, this type of behavior, if he actually thought that he had lost the last election. but, you know, you are absolutely right. there isn't, and shouldn't be, two systems of justice. which i think is part of the problem, which so many republicans think. it's 56% of republicans, that no longer trust the doj or the fbi, to be fair. and that is, i think, catastrophic for our country. >> a stunning turn of events, expectedly in a court that trickles down to the electorate 's perception as well. our conversation will continue. may, thank you for joining me. we don't know all the answers of the indictment, or what is happening with the charges. but, the conversation happening all across america, is about whether it should, what should be, and what is the impact. thank you for joining us. >> thanks laura. >> next, news out of the first

hearing, and trump's second indictment. this one over classified documents. why the judge is signaling that she won't, actually, maybe hold a trial this year. stay with us. made it smell like dave was in his happy place... ...the massage chair at the mall. but...he wasn't. gain flings with oxi boost and febreze. i was told my small business wouldn't qualify for an erc tax refund. you should get a second opinion

from innovation refunds at no upfront cost. sometimes you need a second opinion. [coughs] good to go. yeah, i think i'll get a second opinion. all these walls gotta go! ah ah ah! i'd love a second opinion. no. i'm going to get a second opinion. with innovation refunds, there's no upfront cost to find out. so why not check like i did for my small business? take the first step to see if your small business qualifies for the erc. [ applause ] >> the day you get your clearchoice dental implants makes every day a confident day... a never-hide-my-smile day... a life-of-the-party day... a take-on-the-world day... a believe-in-myself day... a flash-my-new-teeth day. because your clearchoice day is the day

you get your confidence back for good. a clearchoice day changes every day. schedule a free consultation. bridgett is here. she has no clue that i'm here. she has no clue who's in the helmet. are you ready? -i'm ready! alright. xfinity rewards creates experiences big and small, and once-in-a-lifetime.

>> all right. now to donald trump's other legal troubles, trump's lawyers and special counsel jack smith's team appearing in federal court today, on the mar-a-lago classified documents case. trump appointed judge aileen cannon is pushing back on prosecutors proposed mid december trial date. she is called a proposed timeline, compressed, and says that cases like this, well, they just take more time. now, she has yet to actually set a trial date. because if she plans to

promptly issue an order on the matter. norm eisen and -- brandon van grack are back with me right now. norm, let's start with you. there is a big divide, right. there is the august date she wanted to state initially. there is the december date by the prosecutor. and then there is trump who says, after the election. was that ever realistic, after the election? >> no. >> good, one word answer. >> but that doesn't mean he won't get, it laura. because this is a judge, judge cannon, who has already made a pattern of pretty far out decisions, favoring donald from, in the litigation over the search warrant at mar-a-lago. she was struck down twice, by a very conservative, 11th circuit appellate panel. because she so favored him. and, who knows what she's going to do, but he shouldn't get it. >> why shouldn't he get it? >> and i think it goes to the december peace. but what we just talked about is the end date. but, the impart the partner

justice, one of the point that you just pointed out, that judge aileen cannon got into was, this is a compressed timeline. most cases involving classified information, it takes more than six months to put together. >> is that true? >> it is true. but, what isn't true is that most of those cases, the department of justice does not within the first month have all the information they provide to the fence counsel. that's where they are right. now they have provided almost all the unclassified information, and they have said, sitting in the courthouse, they've got about all the classified information. they just need to sign a protective order. so it's, different in the south and related warm justice isn't in such a position to actually go forward in such -- >> and they should be able to get this case to trial within a year. if you look at other complicated cases that have operated on a rocket docket, the paul manafort, a stack out to trial in less than a year. in the eastern district of virginia, where i sometimes practice, they have a very rapid trial calendar. this case should be able to go, and it's of the utmost national interest, that it does go. so we know are, we going to

choose a president, who is convicted of mishandling classified information? that's the whole job of a president. >> i agree, but i would just amend it, it does need to happen in the year. it could happen in six or mine months. if the justices -- shouldn't take 6 to 9 months -- >> but they are providing information. what about that events, who is saying, i've got to go through everything? we may tell me everything, but i've got rights to exculpatory information. i want to see the voluminous requiring documents -- what about their argument? >> so, there are two pieces of that. one is that the department of justice actually provided them with a guide saying, yes, it's voluminous. he was actually what we are going to focus on. the second piece is, that's not the way scheduling works. the defenses and get to review all the information, and then you pick a trial date. whether it is is, you pick a reasonable period of time, and sometimes those dates move. but you don't not put dates on the calendar. >> and that's why she already

has two strikes against her in the 11th circuit. and the 11th circuit as a rule. if you show a pattern of partiality towards a defendant, there is no exact number, but it's kind of a three strikes you're out rule. >> but are we there now, without having a schedule order? >> let's see what she says. she says an order is coming. how reasonable or unreasonable is it? there is no need to defer this case. you are right, even a full year, within a year it should be done. six months, nine months. if she pushes it too far, you can expect that the 11th circuit is going to take a look. >> well, nothing's happening in the next year, gentlemen, it's not like it's an election year. so, don't worry, there is no real timeline. -- more on this. thank you norm eisen and brandon van grack. joining me next everyone michael fanone -- along with former fbi official peter strzok, they'll all react to this new january 6th target letter. also, what does it say that folks like rudy giuliani haven't yet received the same letters? we will break that down. r stops moving... growing.

evolving. it demands energy that evolves with it. meeting this challenge will take more than one solution. and more than a little time. it's the work that makes progress... possible. work that drives us, inspires us... to deliver the energy we need today - while forging new paths to the future - in ways that are affordable, reliable and ever-cleaner. that's... energy in progress. here's how tommy lost 30 lbs on noom weight. i'm tom. noom helped him use psychology to lose weight. the mindful aspect made me feel more conscious about what i was eating and why i was eating it. it's actually working. lose weight and make it last with noom weight.

my name is joshua florence, and one thing i learned being a firefighter is plan ahead. you don't know what you're getting into, but at the end of the day, you know you have a team behind you that can help you. not having to worry about the future makes it possible to make the present as best as it can be for everybody. is it possible to protect my business from cyber threats? it is, with comcast business. helping every connected device stay protected.

yours. your employees'. even... susan? hers, too. safe. secure. and powered by the next generation 10g network. with comcast business, advanced security isn't just possible. it's happening. get started wih fast spees and advanced security for $49.99a month for 12 monts plus ask how to get up to a $750 prepaid card with qualifying internet. sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. a house full of screens? basically no hiccups? you guys have no idea how good you've got it. how old are you? like, 80? back in my day, it was scary stories and flashlights. we don't get scared. oh, really? mom can see your search history. that's what i thought. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity. >> well, once again, there are

political shockwaves moving to capitol hill, as donald trump revealing today that he is the target of a federal investigation into january 6th. new secret where his allies stand on this news, of course. >> it's absolute bull crap. yeah, that's my reaction. >> president trump went up in the polls and was actually surpassing -- what do they do now? weaponize government. >> every time they indict him, his numbers go up. >> -- and donald trump is going to be joe biden in 2024 for a second time. >> why are they doing everything they can to prevent him from being on the ballot in 2024? i will tell you why. because donald trump will win in 2024. and the left just, they are scared -- >> joining me now, sarah matthews, former trump white house deputy press secretary. sadie gurman, justice department reporter for the wall street journal, peter strzok, former fbi jeff deputy assistant director, as well as

cnn law enforcement analyst and former d. c. police officer michael fanone. i'm glad to have all of you here. there is a lot to taken. first of all we are talking about the target letters. you have been a cop, obviously. is this an oddity, we are you have a target letter in general? >> i went back and went through my rolodex of criminal cases. and i probably participated may be in 100, 150 federal court cases. and i can only think of one time in which the target letter was issued. and that was an individual who held an elected office. >> but what does that say though? that because of the nature of the position, you dot the i, as you cross the t's, you have a professional courtesy at times? >> i think so. and i think that's what it has, what's happening here. is the doj is extending every courtesy to donald trump. but i don't think it really matters. i mean, who cares? can the doj issue a target

letter? yes, they can't. do they have to? no, they don't. did they issue one in the circumstance? yes. that's it. other than that, i think it's just -- it gives us fodder to talk about in our 24 hour news cycle, which we need to -- you know. >> well, here is why i disagree. here's why i think it matters. and the idea of, not only crossing the eyes and crossing the tees, the idea that they are on notice, and if you are on notice on a potential crime, you might change your behavior in some, way or you might be somebody who is now feeding evidence in some other way. you have been investigated. an investigator. when we're talking about a target letter in particular, and having this out there, should this matter? or is it the have a balloon that -- >> -- person who knows that the -- investigation is ongoing. if you give them some sort of notice, i'm not going to run. because presumably, that's already all been gathered. so in this point, again, do i

think that this is going to result in trump showing up for before the grand jury and testifying? absolutely not, i can't envision him doing it, i can't envision any of his attorneys doing it. but i do think it is, again, for this sort of case, for a high-profile white collar, public corruption type of defendant. it is something consistent with practice, and all it does, it takes away one potential tool for trump, his attorneys, and his defenders, to try to use against the doj. saying, hey, look, you didn't give us a target letter. you're targeting him politically, which removes, and deflates that sort of attack, before they can use. it. >> -- anyway, though, right? sadie -- the republicans you heard on camera tonight, they have been speaking about, this they don't see it as a courtesy. they don't think the idea of a target letter is somehow magnanimous by the doj. they think it's weaponization, 101. >> right, and, to your point. we have seen trump being treated differently than other criminal defendants, in the separate mar-a-lago investigation.

we saw prosecutors, they didn't even request detention for him. and they didn't, they didn't seek to take his passport, then put any restrictions, really on his release. and that's different. and, that's because jack smith and attorney general garland are very cognizant of, that no matter what they do, it's going to be subject to attacked attack by the right. and that's exactly what we are. saying we saw the fbi director on the hill, last week, it's been a -- long time. >> it's all one day, really. >> yes, that's right. but i mean, it was about six or seven hours of just attacks from republicans about politically-charged investigations. and specifically, how they are treating president trump. >> well, i mean, on that point. is there something that is a winning campaign message, or platform? i mean, the weaponization of the government has become as readily used and heard, as many other things like health care, right. now, it's a conversation point all the time. is there something that they ought to be focusing on? >> i think that, when you look

in the past, republicans are critical of things like the russia investigation, which they thought was all a hoax, and all of that. and so, they kind of sought saw it as a two tiered system of justice. where, trump was being targeted. but, if you look at this case in particular, this is very different. we are talking about donald trump, potentially defying his oath of office, because he wanted to overturn a free and fair election. all because he wanted to stay in power, and couldn't accept the fact that he lost to joe biden. you can be critical of things like the alvin bragg case, in new york. or things like the russia investigation. but, i think things like this case, and the classified documents case, it's hard to say that this is a weaponization of government. also, they're going to a point to the fact that, oh, he's a political candidate. that's why joe biden's doj is going after him. but the thing is, i think that donald trump jumped in the 2024 race because he wanted to use the fact that he was a candidate as a political shield.

and, obviously, his allies are going to use that as a defense as well. but, i think that we need to wait and see what the facts of this potential indictment. our. but i think that they will be strong. >> let's not put the form over the substance of. i mean, the target letter is one thing, right. -- her comment about both your comments eloquently about what the motivation was, maybe going. the race -- but what about the prospective charges, that we are talking about? the idea of conspiracy, the idea of trying to defraud. the notion of false electors. we are about 400 or so days away from the next presidential election. has there been enough lessons learned, in order to avoid this? i mean, you are smirking, have there been? >> i mean, are there lessons learned enough from the party of donald trump to not engage in behavior like this? absolutely not. but look, i think we are in the same place we were before the charges surrounding mar-a-lago. there was a lot of posturing on the political front, when it was apparent the charges were coming, and nobody had read the indictment. i think we are in the same spot,

where the clip you played, you had a lot of folks on the right defending trump. but when this indictment comes, and i really believe it is coming, and we get a chance to see the data in there, the detail, the actual facts that are alleged, i think that's going to be a very similar response, in terms of people reading that, and seeing really overwhelming detail, much of the day with mar-a-lago. so, it's one thing to posture politically now. but when you have alleged facts in front of you, and i really don't think the doj is going to bring a borderline case, when you get that set of overwhelming facts, it's going to be much more difficult and costly, politically, to continue to defend trump. >> so, just to jump on that point, your question was, have there been lessons learned with regards to the political rhetoric surrounding these types of events, and whether or not ultimately, i'm assuming what you are talking about is leading to violence. and have we learned these lessons? i think donald trump has learned his lessons. he does understand that this rhetoric results in violence. and that's his intention. the intention is to say these

things, in these very ambiguous, kind of roundabout ways, where he can kind of say, well, it was just political speak, and whatnot. but he knows that these are, to use the phrase dog whistle is an understatement. he is signaling to his supporters, to go out, commit acts of violence, on his behalf. try to suppress his detractors, and prevent people from coming out and saying, that what donald trump did was. wrong. >> what is your reporting tell you about the success of that, or the long javid e. of that kind of support? >> i think that -- i think it is unwavering. and, what we have seen is that trump has been able to build a lot of support around his two indictments, the fundraising memos came out almost immediately after trump put on truth social that he had -- >> raised millions -- >> he's raised millions, and i think that is one of the sort

of unusual extraordinary circumstances about this political moment that we are in. our views of these cases are so polarized, and i don't know that there is anything that can sway people who are that strongly set in their view,'s a belt the about justice system. so, in some, sense it's not just trump that's going to be on trial here, it's also a test of the justice system. and, for some people, that's going to mean, can the justice department really hold the most powerful people to count. and for other people it's going to be, well, is this an agency that's become irreparably damaged by partisanship? and so, it's just, it's really hard to. this is a very serious test of the justice. system. >> quick last word? >> i think that politically, this obviously is going to benefit him in the short term. but long term, i can't see how this is going to help him win over anyone that he, that either he hasn't already won over or lost since the 2020 election. i think that, independents are going to be outraged by this. and, it's radioactive for them. we saw in the 2022 midterms,

that candidates who were talking about stolen election lies, and pushing all of those fraud claims lost. and, so, if donald trump is still out there talking about this, and this is going to dominate the news cycle because of the looming indictment. and then when he does potentially drop, that's all about him and all the other candidates are going to be talking about. and i think that americans want to be talking about the other issues, that actually match of them. >> everyone, thank you. standby, i'm glad you are all here, because up next is jake tapper. and he will join me on his exclusive interview with, one such candidate. open to get that -- florida governor ron desantis. plus, a surprising development in one of america most notorious cold cases. a search warrant, involving the murder of tupac shakur.

bug spray works best... when your family actually wears it. ♪ get odor-free eight hour protection from mosquitoes and ticks without the ick. zevo on-body repellent. people love it. bugs hate it. ♪ ♪ we're reinventing our network... ...with smarter, more efficient routes... ...so you can deliver more value to your customers. fast. reliable. perfectly orchestrated. the united states postal service. old school hard work meets bold, new thinking, ♪ to help you see untapped possibilities and relentlessly work with you to make them real. ♪

as someone living with type 2 diabetes, i want to keep it real and talk about some risks. with type 2 diabetes you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. even at your a1c goal, you're still at risk ...which if ignored could bring you here... ...may put you in one of those... ...or even worse. too much? that's the point. get real about your risks and do something about it. talk to your health care provider about ways to lower your risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com what's considered normal for your cat is interesting. but if your cat isn't their quirky self lately, they may have pain from a common condition called osteoarthritis. now, there's solensia. solensia is a once-monthly injection to control your cat's oa pain. veterinary professionals administering solensia who are pregnant, trying to conceive, or breast feeding should take extreme care

to avoid self-injection. self-injection could cause allergic reactions like anaphylaxis. ask your vet about solensia and help get your cat back to their normal. tide is busting laundry's biggest myth... that cold water can't clean. cold water, on those stains? ♪ cold water can't clean tough stains? i'd say that myth is busted. turn to cold, with tide. let me be direct: you're doing tv wrong! you thought that other tv provider was good enough. now what?... you'll talk? you call this “watching sports,” do you? ♪ you deserve better. so much in life is a compromise. directv never is. now get out of here — the game's on. call 1-800-directv for a $200 reward card. get directv with or without a satellite.

>> florida's republican governor ron desantis company in south carolina today, even as headlines about his biggest primary rival are dominating the news cycle. cnn's own jake tapper sat down in an exclusive interview with governor desantis. and he asked the governor about the news that trump is the target of the special counsel's investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. >> so, i do have to ask about the breaking news today. >> sure. >> you're chief competitor, the fundamental right now, donald trump, says he was informed that he is the target of special counsel jack smith's investigation into efforts to overturn the results of the

2020 election. and mr. trump has until thursday to report to the grand jury. if jack smith has evidence of criminality, should donald trump be held accountable? >> so, here is the problem. this country is going down the road of criminalizing political differences. and i think that's wrong. alvin bragg stretched a statute, in manhattan, to be able to try to target donald trump. most people, even people on the left, acknowledge that if that wasn't trump, that case would not have likely been brought against a normal civilian. and so, you have a situation where the department of justice, the fbi, have been weaponized against people they don't like. and the number one example of that happened to be against donald trump, with the russia collusion. that was not a legitimate investigation, that was being done to try to drive trump out of office. and so, what i've said as president, my job is to restore a single standard of justice, to and weaponization of these

agencies, we are going to have a new fbi director on day one. we are going to have big changes in the department of justice. americans across the political spectrum need to have confidence that what is going on is based on the rule of law, not based on what political tribe you are in. and then the second thing i would say is, this country needs to have a debate about the country's future. if i am the nominee, we will be able to focus on president biden's failures, and i will be able to articulate a positive vision for the future. i don't think it serves us good to have a presidential election focused on what happened four years ago in january. and so, i want to focus on looking forward, i don't want to look back. i do not want to see him, i hope he doesn't get charged. i don't think it will be good for the country, but at the same time, i've got to focus on looking forward, and that's what we are going to do. >> jake tapper joins me now. jake, framing that sticks out in my head is the idea of criminalizing political differences. which is, really not what foundationally this indictment you have seen so far has been about. but, what did you make about

that answer we just heard? that's a give primary voters a reason to choose him over trump, in all of the legal woes? >> so, i then even followed up with the question. so, if jack smith, the special counsel, finds evidence that trump broke the law, you don't think he should be charged? and i noted that jack smith, who he was painting as a partisan actor, that jack smith has previously been part of the prosecution of democrats like john edwards and new jersey senator bob and menendez, and he stuck with this -- it's basically just a republican talking point now, that they view the entire justice department as politicized. and look, they look at some of the failures of the fbi that have been acknowledged when it comes to the russia investigation against donald trump. and the reforms that christopher wray made, even though you heard him say he's going to fire christopher wray -- and look at the charges or lack of serious charges against hunter biden.

and this is a very popular view among republican voters. and i guess that that is where they feel all these republican presidential candidates, with three exceptions -- will hurd, chris christie, and asa hutchinson -- feel they have to be. because that's where their voters are. their voters are now skeptical of any charges against donald trump. and apparently, they cannot be convinced, even if there is evidence, even if there are individuals like former attorney general bill barr, or former defense secretary mark esper. there saying that they think these are serious charges. >> i mean, fair criticism is always fair. but as you point, out the idea of a talking point that suggests that somehow, over arching lee, it's simply bad for the country to prosecute somebody who is accused of a crime, it is really one that is distinct in the political realm, over anything. else. but i can't help back think about the fact that desantis is lagging quite far behind donald trump in recent polls. and you actually asked him, point blank, about the troubles

that are facing his campaign. let's listen. >> so, this issue gets into the state of the race. because, some of your supporters are disappointed that your campaign has yet to catch fire the way they would want, in terms of polling. one republican pollster, one who is sympathetic to you, was i was asking her about your campaign. and she said, she thought the issue was, you bumped up at the beginning, because voters, republican voters saw usa you as a more electable conservative, like trump. like, trump without the baggage. but then, as they said as you go further and further too the right on some of these divisive social issues, that could alienate moderates, suburban moms, et cetera. republican voters see you as less and less electable. what do you say to that analysis? >> well, i don't think it's true. the proof is in the pudding. i took a state that had been a one-point state, and we won it by 20 percentage points. 1. 5 million votes. our bread and butter were people like suburban moms. we are leading a big movement for parents rights, that the parents be involved in education, school choice, get the indoctrination out of schools.

and of course, there are bread and butter issues that matter as well. inflation, more economic opportunity. florida's economy is ranked number, one of all 50 states. we worked hard to make that. happen. crime -- you see crime in all these different communities that is now even going into suburbs in some areas. so, i think there is a lot of things. i don't think that's the reason. i think the reason is that, i was getting a lot of media attention at the time, coming off of the victory. i had to do my job, as governor, with my legislative session, and we had a great legislative session. we did a lot of great things, actually things that appeal to huge majorities of the population. so, i think that that analysis is wrong. but i had to do that. and so i was basically taking fire, really, nonstop since then. because, a lot of people view me as a threat. i think the left views me as a threat, because they think i will beat biden and actually deliver on all the stuff. and then, of course, people that have their allegiances within the republican side, they have gone after me. but the reality is, this is a state by state process. i'm not running a campaign to try to juice, whatever we are in the national polls. i mean, whatever we did in the

cnn -- compared. it's fine, whatever i'm. definitely doing -- better >> state by state, obviously -- >> it state-by-state. >> i mean, it is state by state. any governor running with of course point to their own track record, and point to their own state. but, there is a simple fact that -- your question -- of the idea of look, he's the done this on florida. but there's 49 other states. what did you make of that answer? >> i mean, look. he does have a track record in florida, 2.2. he was elected with 60% of the vote, and did quite well with some traditionally democratic and democrat-leaning groups. there's no question about that. the question is, how can he compete against donald trump, in south carolina, where i am? and in iowa? and, to a lesser extent, in new hampshire? i say lesser extent because it doesn't seem to be where he is expanding spending as much of his time and focus. he needs to do well in iowa, and anybody who hopes to defeat donald trump needs to hope that he will not win iowa. and, it's true that it is a

state-by-state contest, and that ron desantis is in second place in iowa, according to polls. there is not a great a lot of great polling out there, but he's in second place, hovering in the twenties, i would say. but donald trump is in the 40s. and, while the theory of the case for desantis supporters, and the desantis campaign is, that trump's support is soft, and they just have to present a reasonable alternative, one of the problems, as i enumerated with the governor's, one of the reasons -- one of the big selling points for him was that people thought he was more electable than trump. and so republicans who want to win the white house thought that he was more electable. and, as he is taking more and more conservative positions, on abortion, on the trans community, on the like, some of that support has peeled away, because it was based on electability, and these republicans, whether they are moderate or conservative, now view him as somewhat less electable -- that is what both kristin soltis anderson told us, and

another pollster. so, i don't know where this goes from here. but he really needs to do well in iowa, he needs to come in first, or a very, very strong second. and, he obviously needs to do well here in south carolina, and, look -- it's early. it's early. the first contest is not until january 15th in iowa. but, there's a lot of ground to be made up, and we will see if he can deliver. >> i mean, he does, compared to the others who are in the race, looking for that rnc nomination, he is besting them, of course, compared to donald trump, he is not. but in either event, in iowa, he's got the support so far, although she has notthe govern endorsed him. jake tapper, great interview. we're all looking forward to hearing what the governor had to say. thanks for bringing it to us today. >> thanks, laura. good to see you. now, before we go tonight, there is a sudden development in the cold case of tupac shakur's unsolved murder. las vegas police are not giving away any dls